All I wanted to know is whether or not the Patriarchs make all the decisions in Orthodoxy. I don't know why you are being like this.

So, back to tariffs. I think I've shown why I think they are good, but I am still waiting on a response from both ILN and Celticfox.

"The thing is, you assume that businesses will keep prices artificially high, when in fact they will either use that money to create jobs or they will lower their prices. Either way it works out."

Did you read any of the American examples that Spyman gave you? In every instance the cost was higher than the return.

I actually didn't see them.

For your reading pleasure:

Here are the three examples provided which I shall post verbatim:

Empirical Evidence on the Effect of Tariffs on the Country Imposing Them
Study after study has shown that tariffs cause reduced economic growth to the country imposing them. A few of examples:

1. The essay on Free Trade at The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics looks at the issue of international trade policy. In the essay, Alan Blinder states that "one study estimated that in 1984 U.S. consumers paid $42,000 annually for each textile job that was preserved by import quotas, a sum that greatly exceeded the average earnings of a textile worker. That same study estimated that restricting foreign imports cost $105,000 annually for each automobile worker's job that was saved, $420,000 for each job in TV manufacturing, and $750,000 for every job saved in the steel industry."

2. In the year 2000 President Bush raised tariffs on imported steel goods between 8 and 30 percent. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy cites a study which indicates that the tariff will reduce U.S. national income by between 0.5 to 1.4 billion dollars. The study estimates that less than 10,000 jobs in the steel industry will be saved by the measure at a cost of over $400,000 per job saved. For every job saved by this measure, 8 will be lost.

3. The cost of protecting these jobs is not unique to the steel industry or to the United States. The National Center For Policy Analysis estimates that in 1994 tariffs cost the U.S. economy 32.3 billion dollars or $170,000 for every job saved. Tariffs in Europe cost European consumers $70,000 per job saved while Japanese consumers lost $600,000 per job saved through Japanese tariffs.

Though only the first two were American.

they dont, the point of being Orthodox is we dont make new rules or change old ones, the rules were set at the seventh ecumenical council in Nicea in 787 AD. we've been following the same rules since then

@damian: The problem with those examples is that it doesn't show what would happen if we abolished the corporate and income taxes, so they are naturally skewed.

They demonstrate the negative effect of the tariffs regardless. The examples compare with income tax + corporate tax, to with income tax + corporate tax and tariffs. Because the income tax + corporate tax are relatively consistent between both examples any effect must be a result of the tariffs.

Getting rid of income tax and corporate tax will help the economy without a doubt.

Tariffs won't. They have a demonstrable negative effect. Both in theory, (the excerpt from Hazlitt that I posted) and in practice (the international and USA examples that Spyman posted).

The problem is that the money that is used to subsidize (which is exactly what a tariff is, a subsidy by another name) the businesses supported by tariffs, is more than the money those businesses produce in terms of jobs.

Combined, they all have a positive result. In the 1800s, these combined factors worked splendidly.

I think that whole "government can charge income tax" amendment was a bad idea.

Tariffs are a subsidy to local business. The only difference is that with tariffs the government pays for them indirectly.

Subsidies are bad.

That's a weird argument.

It really isn't.

Tariffs are effectively a subsidy. They are benefit granted to a specific business, at tax payer expense. In the case of Tariffs the taxpayer is forced to pay for the tariffs because the tariffs raise the cost of goods to allow American businesses to compete. The American business can compete at the now higher price, and the American customers pay for it.

If I proposed the US government payed a US company for each product it produced so that they could sell their product as cheaply as international products you would think I was crazy.

Tariffs accomplish the same thing in a different fashion

A tariff is not a subsidy. They are not granted at taxpayer expense.

You are wrong on so many levels.

That's the point, tariffs aren't granted at taxpayer expense. (The businesses that pay the tariffs raise costs to reclaim the money) Instead the tariffs are paid in terms of increased cost for regular americans. Subsidy or Tariff, either way the American people are paying more money, for a good they could have got cheaper from abroad. The American business that is helped by the Subsidy or Tariff is benefiting from a political favour which reduces competition and hurts the populace.

But yes. They aren't a subsidy, but they achieve the same thing, in both cases they make the american people pay to support uncompetitive businesses.

The people will not be paying. People will pay no taxes, and competition will bring prices down. Common sense.

Directly, no. Indirectly, yes. That's the problem, tariffs neuter competition.

But new competition will arise, just as it always has. Prices can never stay artificially high. It has never happened, and it never will happen.

You are tacking 5% onto the prices. The prices may go down as the efficiency of production is improved. But that 5% will remain. If the cost of a foreign products is $1.00, + $0.05 Tariff and the US made one, without the Tariff is $1.00, the American company can afford to charge $1.04 and still undercut the prices of the foreign company. To do anything else would be crazy. Businesses will maximize their profit. If you give them a consistent advantage over foreign business they'll bump their prices to be just a little cheaper.

Furthermore tariffs are most often erected to promote the (re)emergence or industries that do not exist at present. Why don't those industries already exist? Because they cannot compete at the current prices, what a tariffs does is allow them to compete at an artificially raised price. Which all the consumers are now paying, every time they wish to buy any type of product.

And since apparently aren't penetrating, you can read a more eloquent version here: http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap11p1.html
-> section button at the bottom will allow you to continue reading the article. I believe there are six sections

And if you are unwilling to educate yourself, so be it. I will cease this argument. Because it is purposeless.

That would only apply to imports. So if we create a capitalist environment, we would be able to make the things that we need here.

And any instance were it is more efficient to produce the goods elsewhere, will result in the American consumer paying inflated prices to sponsor an inefficient industry.

And why is is more efficient to produce goods elsewhere?
Either a) Easier access to materials or b) Lower wages

America has high wages, unless you want the standard of living to drop products produced in America will cost more.

Anyway, I've given you something to read which explains it better than I can.

Hazlitt is a great writer. So I'm going to walk away now.

I will read it and get back to you.

Sbyvl you seem to be uneducated about the most basic of economic principles. I can't tell if this is because you are so young that you haven't studied economics at school yet, or if you are much older and if you ever did study economics it was so long ago that you can't remember the basic theories.

It is nothing to be ashamed of, most people don't under the basics economics.

If are interested in becoming better educated I can recommend some excellent learning material. The Teaching Company offers lectures about a range of university level subjects including Economics.

This lecture series by Professor Timothy Taylor is a very good introduction:
http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sa_3?asin=B00D8J59NI

And her is a link to other economics course by the Teaching Company which are available on audible:

http://www.audible.com/series/ref=amb_link_377392402_21?ie=UTF8&pf_rd_m=A2ZO8JX97D5MN9&pf_rd_s=center-23&asin=B00DLM6CUG&pf_rd_r=08BJB13EDAHT0VT8A53V&pf_rd_p=1580141922&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=TheGreatCourses

Honestly, I am not very interested in theories, but instead what has worked in the past. I said I would read the article out of respect.